Indeed I did not explain myself well. What is our job here? To highlight images that we think are of value value. We have to prove this by placing these images in the encyclopedies before the concourse. If they are not remove it is what will be recognized by all as of high value. If we give labels to images that are not used we lose our time and we devalorise the label. In your case you should replace the mediocre image which is very used by yours, which is exellent, in any case where it bad image is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the offical Commons policy here says that I should not over-write the existing file. There is of course no reason why I should not replace links to the existing file with links to the new file (which is what I intend to do). Martinvl (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @Martinvl: to me it's clear that Archaeodontosaurus is not suggesting that you should overwrite any existing file. He is suggesting that to demonstrate the value of your image you should replace uses of any other images with uses of your image - the test being to see if it is generally accepted or reverted. DeFacto (talk). 09:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes DeFacto understood. It is an additional degree of democracy. Replacing the images is a normal act. If you try to place a bad image, it will not stay up more than a few minutes on most encyclopedias. Yours will be very welcome where you place it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have made 30 replacements in 28 different Wikipedias and had one reversion - that reversion was because I replaced an archive image (See here. I am however a little uneasy about doing bulk replacements before my image is reviewed. Martinvl (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
